STATE OF FLORIDA (13 f\llg 22 ~H \Q: 39 FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSIO~T'., '~ <I' FLO?.\D.1' ~1f.-011_, -- _.,,_,>1\'""C:\~u'I

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "STATE OF FLORIDA (13 f\llg 22 ~H \Q: 39 FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSIO~T'., '~ <I' FLO?.\D.1' ~1f.-011_, -- _.,,_,>1\'""C:\~u'I"

Emma Ophelia Harris
5 years ago
Views:

1 \ ) ; STATE OF FLORIDA (13 f\llg 22 ~H \Q: 39 FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSIO~T'., '~ <I' FLO?.\D.1' ~1f.-011_, -- _.,,_,>1\'""C:\~u'I r-: r c r1(1\'s c1.11 1i'1.:i... 1,... C..~~C., Iv'' ~ In Re: David T. Donzella Case No.: FEC F.O. No.: DOSFEC W ORDER OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE THIS CAUSE came on to be heard by the Florida Elections Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting held on August 13, 2003, in Tallahassee, Florida. After considering the Statement of Findings and the recommendations of counsel, the Commission finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated: Section (5), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false, or incomplete. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED by the Florida Elections Commission and filed with the Clerk of the Commission on August 22, 2003, in Tallahassee, Florida. Chance Irvine, Chairman Florida Elections Commission 107 W. Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, FL NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, the Respondent may appeal the Commission's final order to the appropriate district court of appeals by filing a notice of appeal both with the Clerk of the Florida Elections Commission and the Clerk of the district court of appeals. The notice must be filed within 30 days of the date this final order was filed with the P _ C007 (1/98)

2 Clerk of the Commission and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. \. ) Copies furnished to: Phyllis Hampton, General Counsel Douglas A. Bell, Attorney for Respondent David Donzella, Respondent Marian Migliore-Russell, Complainant Supervisor of Elections, Broward County, Filing Officer Attachment: Statement of Findings () P_C007 (1/98)

3 \ FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Case Number: FEC Respondent: David T. Donzella Complainant: Marian Migliore-Russell On March 5, 2003, the Florida Elections Commission received a sworn complaint alleging that the Respondent violated Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. The Commission staff investigated the allegations and based on the facts and conclusions of law contained in the Complaint, the Report of Investigation, and this statement, the staff recommends that there is no probable cause to charge the Respondent with violating: Section (5), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false, or incomplete. Summary of Facts and Concll\sions of Law. ' 1. Respondent was elected to the Central Broward Water Control District, Zone 6 seat, in the November 5, 2002 election, with 60.6% of the vote. He ran unsuccessfully in 1998 for the same office. 2. Douglas A. Bell, of Bell and Bell law firm, represents Respondent. Mr. Bell was also Respondent's designated campaign treasurer for the campaign. 3. Complainant was Respondent's opponent. She was originally elected in 1994 and reelected in I. Section (5), Florida Statutes. 4. The Commission staff investigated whether the Respondent violated Section (5), Florida Statutes, by certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report (CTR) that is incorrect, false, or incomplete. 5. Complainant alleged that Respondent's campaign made three expenditures that were not reported. The three expenditures were: $2,000 paid to the campaign manager for his services, expenditures for campaign photographs used in political advertisements, and expenditures for campaign hand outs. Consulting Services 6. Respondent said that the Respondent's campaign manager made a statement at a public forum on October 31, 2002 that he had been paid $2,000 by Respondent's campaign for his services. Soflll l (6/0J) 1

4 7. David Brown, the individual identified by Complainant as Respondent's campaign manager, stated in an affidavit that he was not the campaign manager. Mr. Brown stated that he is the owner of Sales Builders Promotions, Inc., and that he had an oral agreement with Respondent to provide consulting services for the campaign. Pursuant to this agreement, he would be paid $2,500 on November 1, Mr. Brown was paid $2,500 on November 1. He stated that he had not been paid anything from Respondent's campaign as of October 31, Respondent's CTR for the reporting period of November 1, 2002 through February 3, 2003 shows a $2,500 expenditure to "Sales Builders" for "Campaign Consultation" on November 1, Respondent's counsel provided staff with a copy of Respondent's campaign check to "Sales Builders." This check is dated November 1, 2002 and is for $2,500. Counsel also provided staff with a copy of an invoice from Sales Builders Promotions, Inc., dated November 1, 2002 for $2,500 for "Campaign Consulting Services." Photographs 10. Respondent's CTR for the reporting period of August 17 through September 5, 2002 shows that Respondent reported a $ expenditure to Gerlinde Photos for photographs on August Respondent confirmed that the expenditure was for campaign photographs of him and his wife and son. Respondent said the photographs were used exclusively for campaign advertisements. The photographs were on a CD and were delivered to David Brown of Sales Builders Promotions for the political advertisements. 12. Respondent's counsel provided staff with copies of the invoice and campaign check for this purchase. Hand Outs 13. The following chart shows the six reported expenditures for campaign hand outs. The campaign utilized two vendors on six occasions for a total of $11, Reported Dates Amount Payee Reported Purpose September 24th $834 Image Plus Graphics Hand outs/door Hangers October 21" $442 Image Plus Graphics Printing October 24th $1, Image Plus Graphics Mailer October 24th $1, Strategic Tech Mailer & Postage November 4th $2, Image Plus Graphics Mailers November 4th $4, Strategic Tech Mailers & Postage SofOl l (6/03) 2

5 ' \. 14. Two of Respondent's reported expenditures were apparently for multiple invoices ) received by the campaign. The following chart illustrates these expenditures. Designee Reported Date of Check Actual Amounts & Date(s) of Amount lnvoice(s) Image Plus $2, November 1st. Oct. 29th - $1, Graphics Oct. 31st - $579 Total $2, Strategic Tech $4, November 1st Oct. 30th - $1, Oct. 31st - $1, Nov. 1st_ $ Total $4, IV. Conclusion. 15. There is no evidence that the Respondent did not comply with Section (5), Florida Statutes. All three of the expenditures were reported in the Respondent's CTR. Under these circumstances, I recommeiid that the Commission find no probable cause that a violation occurred. Respectfully submitted on June 19, 2003,. ;) :4 - P~ton ~ General Counsel Copy furnished to: Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Mark O'Brien, Investigator Specialist Sof1Jl I (6/03) 3

After considering the Statement of Findings and the recommendations of counsel, the

After considering the Statement of Findings and the recommendations of counsel, the STATE OF FLORIDA f': i!,~y ~,? PH 2: 55 FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION"'.... - - In Re: HarTell Harrison Case No.: FEC 00-397 F.O. No.: DOSFEC 01-178 W : 1-..- -.I:""! l : i ;:i ;~- i ~.~ ORDER OF NO PROBABLE